Skip to main content

View Diary: Washington Post Notices Class Divide (296 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Don't mention a new party that fights for us (16+ / 0-)

    We need more and better sell outs that sell us out better.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening. "It's the planet, stupid."

    by FishOutofWater on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 05:44:41 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I got a warning saying I would lose my (8+ / 0-)

      posting privileges if I advocated for a Republican or third-party here. I've been involved as a member of the local Democratic party for years and have participated in canvassing and campaign efforts accordingly. I canvassed and called for the President, and I did the same for various other democratic candidates.

      The fact that I received that warning has told me all I need to know about the way things are around here. The "better" is irrelevant, period. Issues don't matter. Or, rather, they only matter in a very narrow context (specifically, if the issue will elect a person who calls himself a "Democrat," even if he doesn't actually advocate for the party's platform,  then it matters in the good way, otherwise it matters in a bad way, and the person bringing it up needs to be silenced).

      •  this is wrong (5+ / 0-)

        but advocating R is wrong too.

        what happens when many, many of us here, lifetime Ds, say we are through with Ds?

        kos: do you really want us to go away?

        think hard on it because the time is short.  

        "Until we know how to safely dispose of the radioactive materials generated by nuclear plants, we should postpone these activities so as not to cause further harm to future generations" Dr Shoji Sawada

        by BlueDragon on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 06:57:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The sick part of it is nothing I have ever (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KateCrashes, QuoVadis, neroden

          written indicates even the slightest hint I would ever  advocate for a Republican.

          Based on the text of the warning  I received, anybody who's ever written a comment advocating voting for Bernie Sanders or having admitted to it should basically be banned, or at least have lost their privileges. It's selective censorship.

        •  I believe the Dem part needs transformation, and (6+ / 0-)

          that can really only happen from inside. It will have to be a transformation on the scale of what happened in 1932 and 1968, and hopefully not as violent as '68.

          But transformations require a confrontation; and we populist progressives need to gird ourselves for that battle, and work together.

          For if we do not hang together and fight the good fight, surely we will hang separately and die loney deaths of quiet desperation.

          •  I remember reading Brad DeLong's (6+ / 0-)

            great econ. blog a few months ago and he was figuratively shaking his head as to why neither party seemed to be frightened AT ALL about a backlash at the polls due to the grinding unemployment.

            His incredulilty stemmed from the fact that PEOPLE CAN VOTE.  

            But, as we on this forum have elucidated well, the reality of grinding un- and underemployment can be trumped by a few well placed ads on the injustice of perceived socialism and the evils of abortion.

            It's amazing.

            From Neocon to sane- thanks to Obama- and Kos.

            by satrap on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 07:48:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, and perhaps it is also that the dems don't (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              QuoVadis, bablhous, ciganka, neroden

              really offer much of an alternative.

              •  At the local level there is more granularity (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VigilantLiberal, QuoVadis, neroden

                There are distinctly different kinds of "Democrat" at the local level--some are clearly DINOs and some are clearly more progressive. I think "there is no/little difference between the parties" is really only true without exception in a very narrow context, and regionally on the national level (in other words it's a simplification that works only in a very narrow sense).

                One of the biggest problems in this party right now, at least at the national level, is this blind belief that every Democrat is better than any Republican. If nothing else the hijinks in Wisconsin ought to wake people up to the fact that Republicans play dirty (and, in my opinion/experience dirtier than Democrats) and that sometimes that guy with a "D" after his name isn't a "D" after all.

                Would somebody who advocated for a third-party candidate in one of the Wisconsin recall elections in which the GOP's fraud-democrat won the primary contest be banned/censored here?

      •  So change your methods. (0+ / 0-)

        Get laws passed allowing for Fusion voting, where a candidate can run on multiple party lines.  Then when candidates are cross-endorsed by multiple parties, freely vote for the most acceptable.  This does give you a bit of influence and a parliamentary flavor.  See any diary on New York politics.

        -7.75 -4.67

        "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

        There are no Christians in foxholes.

        by Odysseus on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 09:20:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm investigating groups that are (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, neroden

          supporting different kinds of electoral reforms for exactly this reason and purpose.

          •  I've studied voting reforms a LOT. (0+ / 0-)

            For legislatures, you want some form of "party-proportional representation".  There are a dozen ways to do it, open party list, single transferrable vote, or the rarely used reweighted range voting.  It doesn't matter which you use.  You need proportional representation.

            For single-winner offices, like President and Governor, and for ballot measures, and for conducting business within a legislative body, there is no better system than Approval Voting.  (Well, Range Voting, a.k.a. Olympic Voting, is equally good, psychologically better but more complicated to count.)  

            Approval Voting is ridiculously simple.  Suppose you have four options (Jefferson, Lincoln, Stalin, and Hitler, say).  Everyone votes up or down on each option (I vote up on Jefferson and Lincoln, down on Stalin and Hitler).  Whichever candidate receives the most "up" votes wins.

            This guarantees that you get the result which is accepted by the largest number of people, which is what keeps a democracy legitimate.

            Unfortunately, a lot of voting reform groups advocate IRV, which is essentially useless (Australia has it for their lower house and has... exactly the same two-party system as we do.)

            Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

            by neroden on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 06:42:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site